Talk:European Data Point Methodology V2.0

From XBRLWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Comments

Comment-01

[TD] Or better "Introduction" for section title? (comment "b" in the file Comments about CEN/TC XBRL)

Comment accepted. TD to adapt

Comment-02

[TD] Ignacio suggests "In the page 7, figure: Figure 1 —Structural Perspective, the cardinality of 1 is not necessary. [TD: I can not change the graphics]

Comment rejected.

Comment-03

[TD] Ignacio suggests here to repleace the sentence above the comment with: "In the DataPointModel a Hierarchy forms are sets of concepts of a domain (DefinedMembers) of a dimension (EnumerableDimension) arranged in a hierarchical disposition." Myself I note a problem with the expression: "a Hierarchy forms are sets" (should it bee "a Hierarchy forms sets ..."?

Comment accepted: "are sets" -> "a set" TD to adapt.

Comment-04

[TD] Suggestion by I. replace "A Module is a group of DataCubes that carry relevant identical semantics and may serve the reporting process" with "A Module is a group of DataPoints with its appropriate Dimensions and concepts of the dimension (DataCubes) ...."

Comment to be further processed: make sure that ref links are present in the Word Document.

Comment-05

[TD] Suggestion by I.: “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension can refer to a Domain. ….”. I would exchange by in “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension must refer to a Domain. ….”.

Comment rejected.

Comment-06

[TD] Comment by I. :“4.6 Hierarchical Perspective …. 1) When using multiple DimensionedElements on a single Dimension that has a Hierarchy in its DefinedMembers, the required math may not be possible to perform.”. I don’t understand. Only, it is possible to define a data point with only a member domain by dimension. Is this that you want to say?

Comment accepted. Roland to edit the segment.

Comment-07

[TD] Comment by I. : h. In page 18, “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel is not determined. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”. Can have in a hierarchy “*” or “/”? I think: “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel must be “+” or “-“. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”.

[TD] But I think this comment refers to a previous version of the document.

Comment reject.

Comment-08

[TD] comment by I.: figure 5, the arrow to tablesheet is longer. [TD: I can not modify the graphics

Comment accepted. Katrin to modifiy.

Comment-09

it is a doubt. “Rule 1.9 — There MUST NOT be a doubling of DefinedMembers in the same Dimension. A DefinedMember MUST only be references once in a Dimension.”. I understand that a member domain can belong to several dimensions, cannot it?

Comment rejected.


Comment-10

“In general” should be added before parameters. The rest like Booleans or strings are exceptions. Multidimensional models are in general oriented to analysis.

Comment-11

Each DataPoint MUST be represented in one DataCube

Suggestion: Replace /one/ by /exactly one/ (not one or more)

KH: Same DataPoint could be used in COREP and FINREP.

Comment-12

BdF:"“A DataCube must be part of at least one Module” This rule forbids a modelled information that is not yet in production." RH:"Indeed, is that a requirement? Models should be able to contain information that is not (yet/anymore) used?" KH: "The currency period rules the begin of production."

Comment-13

Suggestion by BdF: "The business template is to be split in two or more tables to prevent that the same Dimension is associated to more than one axis"

RH: Hmmm. It's not about separating the dim from X and Y, but from X1 and X2.

Comment-14

BdF: "I think in DPM, a domain can reference several dimensions"

RH: In XBRL, yes. In (Victors) DPM, no. KH: The link in the graph is unidirectional. The domain does not know which dimension refer to it.

Comment-15

BdF:" A dictionaryElement can be owned by several taxonomy" RH: Not in the setup where all elements are created only once. Either re-use the schema or use versioning. KH: What about metrics that are defined for COREP and FINREP

Comment-16

Comment-17

Comment-18

Comment-19

Comment-20

Comment-21

Comment-22

Comment-23

Personal tools